ForArgyll.com: Argyll's online broadsheet.

Who is “Jack Aubrey”? Could there be such …

Comment posted 2012 Scottish Islands Peaks Race Oban to Troon – just finished by Peter MacKenzie.

Who is “Jack Aubrey”? Could there be such a coincidence that our “marine professionals” cheerleader actually has the same monicker as that murderous, belligerent, Napoleonic War nutter played by Russell Crowe? Maybe he has Aubrey-like anger issues. Or is he just a wannabe hard man? In fact, I’m beginning to see some very disturbing connections here … I surely hope he’s never given charge of so much as a kayak, far less a ship.

Use your real name, man, and have a proper reasoned discussion if you’re capable of it. Dismantle my interpretation of the International Rules for the Prevention of Collision at Sea if you can, and BTW, your opinion might carry some weight if you wouldn’t hide behind a rather pathetic pseudonym. What happened last week was real world, not fantasy.

Nothing in the collision regs says that commercial shipping has any rights over anyone else. If you can’t accept that then I hope you never take charge of anything that floats because you’ll plainly be a menace.

Peter MacKenzie also commented

  • Pharos may claim simply colreg Rule 9, the right “not to be impeded” by sailing vessels under 20 metres length in a narrow channel.

    At nautical college, my lecturer, former NLB master of the old 1950s built Pharos as it happens, emphasised that the over-riding essence of the colregs is that you must take every action possible to avoid collision, and with all due regard for the circumstances.

    I think Rules 7 and 8 may have some relevance. Rule 7, Risk of Collision: was there a risk of collison? Most certainly, yes, many times over. Why? Because when Pharos left her berth, the channel, and indeed much of the rest of the bay, was congested, full of slow, close-hauled and tacking sailing vessels. And let’s not forget that from the perspective of the yacht skippers, there would be colregs obligations to contend with between the 50 sailing boats too.

    Rule 8, Action to Avoid Collision, “8(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.” (Or even remain at your berth for a few minutes longer?) Obligations on a right of way vessel “8(f) (iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.” The essence of Rule 8 is, don’t get into a close quarters situation, regardless of who is right, and if you do, then avoiding collision takes over from the right not to be impeded.
    Rule 13, Overtaking “13)a) … any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.” Difficult when that’s vessels x 50 to be overtaken in a narrow channel and all are constrained by draught, even assuming they’re trying not to impede you.

    Finally, Rule 34, sound signals, “34(d) When … either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle.” Since it seem as though there was a lot of failure to understand intentions or actions, perhaps the sailing vessels should have given 5 blasts when Pharos was leaving the NLB pier.

    Edit – to cut through any irony in the above, I believe Pharos should not have gotten under way if it was obvious what she was heading out into. And given the view avaialble to her from the lighthouse pier, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t crystal clear.

  • I echo Robert’s view. Pharos’s performance is in stark contrast to that of the Cal Mac outer isles ferry which meets the race fleet every year just outside Dunollie and invariably keeps well clear and shows patience and the short few minutes of forebearance required. And unlike Pharos, the ferry doesn’t have dynamic positioning systems that can balance it on a penny.

Recent comments by Peter MacKenzie

  • Indy, the banks and the Scottish economy
    No apology warranted other than from your darling “newsie”, lads. See my comment placed above ten minutes ago
  • Indy, the banks and the Scottish economy
    You’ve employed the usual FA ploy when found out: fluster, bluster, smokescreen.

    If you don’t understand what actually happened to RBS, perhaps you shouldn’t be publishing articles about it.

    80% of RBS exposure to losses arose from its casino banking arms, the Global Banking and Markets Division (London) and its parallel US operation, RBS Greenwich Capital. The main role of the UK and US governments was to underwrite the unquantifiable exposure of RBS and all the other “investment banks” to losses of their casino operations, i.e., in their holdings in and trading of, “innovative” securities (MBSs, CDOs, and their multiple derivatives) and in their monoline insurance activities (CDSs, insurance against collapse of those very same securities). Predominantly, London and New York were the casino markets in which those gambles were being played; and unfortunately for the UK and US taxpayer, it was quite appropriate that their governments were left to underwrite the madness.

    As for confirmation that the US carried its share of the can for RBS, here are just a few contemporaneous links:-
    2008, as the crisis unfolded:
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/rbs-will-get-billions-in-us-bail-out-of-economy-1.826927
    Confirmation the proposed US bailout was being implemented, 2010:
    http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed
    More funds, reported 2011, courtesy of US taxpayers (not that they knew until their government was forced to disclose):
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

    Finally, I make no apology for copying below this portion of comment I placed on another thread here a couple of days ago as it gives an indication of what those hundreds of billions of government support actually propped up:

    “It was to cover the risk attached to bits of paper that no one could assess the value of. The “new paradigm” financial instruments invented by Wall Street to exploit the rest of us. “Asset” Backed Securities and all that flowed (and continues to flow) therefrom: Collataralised Debt Obligations (and the squared and cubed and ‘n’ derivatives thereof – the alchemy by which worthless unsaleable junk debt was transformed into AAA gold), Credit Default Swaps (or more particularly, being on the wrong side of those). It was scammed out of us by all of the US rating agencies, Fitch, Moody and S&P, placing AAA and Super-Senior, i.e., super-safe investment grade ratings on bonds which literally weren’t worth the paper they were written on.

    I get nothing from that £275 billion, not a single penny. It was stumped up on behalf of the UK taxpayer specifically to reward RBS’s counterparties in the non-productive casino “banking” game: the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse, and the shady hedge gamblers. In short, it was stumped up to underwrite a system which benefits only a tiny group of privileged and very, very rich parasites.”

  • Indy, the banks and the Scottish economy
    Carry on as you are, JB. You’re doing just fine.
  • Indy, the banks and the Scottish economy
    Happy to help.

    On second thoughts, that’s not true. Your blog has pretensions towards journalism and yet you repeatedly misinform. That amount to a gross disservice to the less knowledgable reader and I’m not the least bit happy to see that.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon-macintyrekemp/scottish-independence-bank-bailout_b_4895234.html

  • BBC indy debate: incoherent uncontrolled unedifying bear pit
    £45 billion to protect deposits and £275 billion for …. tell us what.

    I’ll tell you what. It was to cover the risk attached to bits of paper that no one could assess the value of. The “new paradigm” financial instruments invented by Wall Street to exploit the rest of us. “Asset” Backed Securities and all that flowed (and continues to flow) therefrom: Collataralised Debt Obligations (and the squared and cubed and ‘n’ derivatives thereof – the alchemy by which worthless unsaleable junk debt was transformed into AAA gold), Credit Default Swaps (or more particularly, being on the wrong side of those). It was scammed out of us by all of the US rating agencies, Fitch, Moody and S&P, placing AAA and Senior, i.e., super-safe investment grade ratings on bonds which literally weren’t worth the paper they were written on.

    I get nothing from that £275 billion, not a single penny. It was stumped up on behalf of the UK taxpayer specifically to reward RBS’s counterparties in the non-productive casino “banking” game: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse, and the shady hedge gamblers. In short, it was stumped up to underwrite a system which benefits only a tiny group of privileged and very, very rich parasites.

    My household has no private debt: not a penny. The UK Government has made me a debtor to the tune of £68,000. Every other household owes the same amount, courtesy of the UK Treasury. That £68,000 debt each household owes has to be serviced and it has to be paid back. Pips will squeak long before that happens.

    If that’s the industry we’re told we’re about to lose, maybe that’s for the best. But it’s not (London has it and is welcome to it); and the rest of it, we won’t.

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·


Related Articles & Comments